American Observer's replies make me... hate America.

neuradynamia banjo entoil archcriminal mithraicism averseness spanish cebur
Belly Punch And Navel Love
http://www.angelfire.com/uqfctxnz/uk0.html

A.O.: "....because Iran's war against the West..."

If you say so then it must be right (because you're never wrong, right?).

you humanitarian you :)

Persian Redneck says:

"Iranians are going to do what they wish and what they decide."

American Observer replies:

Ha Ha Ha. Saddam said the same thing when he tried to build the Osirak reactor, and you see what that got him. No amount of guff was able to complete Saddam's reactor and no amount of guff can bring Saddam back from hell. You can give your guff if you want, 'Persian Redneck'; but America and Israel will have the last word on Iran's nuclear program; and if the Iranians want to follow the Japanese down the kamikaze trail, well, Iran is hardly more ready for war than Iraq was, and at the end of the day Iran will simply join Iraq on the list of failed states.

American Observer,

Iranians are going to do what they wish and what they decide. The UN Charter allows it and rules and laws are for every body, including Yankees.
So, relax and do not interfere in other people's business. Consider this as an exemplary message of all Iranians to all Americans.

If Iran wants to buy refineries, or nuclear power plants or boats or power stations or cars or missiles, it will do so at its own pace and at such time of Iran's choosing. It is an independent and sovereign country.

Unknown Joe says:

"Iranians learned that it's better to be self-sufficient than be dependant on someone else a long time ago. On nuclear power plants, you don't want to accept the fact that their oil will run out in the next decades and they need to develop another source of power."

American Observer says:

That does not make even a bit of sense. We don't know exactly when Iran's oil will run out, because Iran's war against the West has meant that there has been no oil exploration or development in Iran since the nineteen-seventies. If the Iranians shut down their nuclear program and stopped sending armor-piercing bombs to the Taliban, then the Iranians could get people in to develop their oil industry, and they might double its life span.

Secondly, how exactly does building a BREEDER reactor today make them self-reliant? Why is it 'self-reliant' to sell tens of billions of barrels of oil so they can give the Russians billions of dollars to build a high-tech reactor which does not fit the Iranian economy? Why is it 'self-reliant' to sell millions of barrels of oil so Iran can get the millions of dollars which Iran will need to purchase nuclear fuel from Russia? Why do the Iranians keep blathering about 'research?' And if Iran really wants to generate electricity, why is Iran so desperate to keep the fissile materials which the reactor generates? When you get right down to it, why build a BREEDER reactor which generates so much fissile material when a LIGHT-WATER reactor generates far fewer fissile materials, and a lot more electricity?

Indeed, if the Iranians want to be 'self-reliant,' why is Iran selling oil at the world price so Iran can purchase gasoline at the world price, instead of just paying the Russians to build an oil refinery so the Iranians can make their own gasoline and sell it to their own people at a much cheaper local price?

Unknown Joe, you are still dodging the questions. Would you like to try again?

A.O.: "Can you explain to us why a nation which desperately needs oil refineries is spending billions of dollars to buy a nuclear reactor from the Russians?
WHY NOT JUST BUY AN OIL REFINERY FROM THE RUSSIANS?"

Iranians learned that it's better to be self-sufficient than be dependant on someone else a long time ago. On nuclear power plants, you don't want to accept the fact that their oil will run out in the next decades and they need to develop another source of power.

Why do you dodge questions? I ask you questions and you dodge them.

On IAEA, I didn't say IAEA "trusts" Iran, I said IAEA most likely knows much more about such matters than you, and they are more aware of Iran's nuclear program than you.

A.O.: "Moving along, let me remind you of some of the other questions that you have tried to evade"

"tried to evade"? excuse me mastuh (wow, off the deep end with your attitude and accusations?)

A.O.: "But it is typically Iranian".
"It is clear that Iranians are motivated only by egotism and malice", "and reason will not work with them", "We don't need to negotiate with the Iranians"

Sounds exactly like the position of ...
never mind. So A.O., in your unbiased and non-prejudicial opinion and comments (and of course, without any ulterior motives), should there ever be negotiations and relations with Iran and Iranians?
LOL!!!!

Whoever says:

"So they "keep on capturing Iranians carrying bombs into Afghanistan and Iraq"? Missed that one on the news."

American Observer replies:

Wow -- you must have missed the entry that I put above. Allow me to repost:

The Washington Post reports today:

"Arms Flow Between Iran, Taliban Escalating

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 15, 2007; 12:18 PM

An Iranian arms shipment destined for the Taliban was intercepted on Sept. 6 by the international force in Afghanistan in what appears to be an escalating flow of weaponry between the two former enemies, according to officials from countries in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.

The shipment included armor-piercing bombs known as explosively formed projectiles, which have been especially deadly when used as roadside bombs against foreign troops in Iraq, the sources said. The NATO-led force interdicted two smaller shipments of similar weapons coming from Iran into southern Helmand province on April 11 and May 3.

....

Iran, a Shiite-dominated country, has long opposed the Taliban, a Sunni group with different ideas. Their cooperation is based on common opposition to foreign and particularly Western troops in Afghanistan, according to the United States and officials from other countries in the force.

"They're playing with the enemy. They have no love lost for the Taliban. The Taliban killed several Iranian diplomats. We believe it's about hurting the Americans and the international community," an official from one of the participating countries said on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence."

You can see the whole article at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/15/AR2007091500803.html?hpid%3Dtopnews⊂=AR

American Observer comments:

Wow -- the Iranians and the Taliban are natural enemies. Seeing the Iranians send arms to the Taliban is like seeing the Nazis send arms to the Soviets. What the Iranians are doing is not only malicious, it is stupid and irrational.

But it is typically Iranian. Some people on this board have suggested that Iran would never do anything as crazy as build a nuclear weapon, and some people on this board have suggested that Iran would never do anything as crazy as use that nuclear weapon, or give it to someone else to use it. Of course, today's news shows that is nonsense. It is clear that Iranians are motivated only by egotism and malice, like the Al-Qaeda, and reason will not work with them. We don't need to negotiate with the Iranians; we need to keep the sanctions and make them tighter.

A.O.: "and the Iranians are not a bit more logical".

Maybe it's their culture, or maybe it's a racial thing. I hope Iranians will never be as "logical" as you are, for the world would be in much more trouble than it already is.

A.O.: "The Iranians do not have a logical reason to arm their old enemies, the Taliban, but the Iranians are doing it anyway. We know this because the American military keeps capturing Iranians carrying armor-piercing bombs into Afghanistan and Iraq -- armor-piercing bombs that neither the Taliban nor the Shia insurgents in Iraq can make for themselves".

So they "keep on capturing Iranians carrying bombs into Afghanistan and Iraq"? Missed that one on the news.

Prejudice, blinds.

Yup, they're all "stories" (about Iran), unless they fit how you want to twist it and in the process to help justify attacking and bombing Iran and turning the whole region into rubble and a humaninatrian nightmare.

But, you are concerned very much and care for the "Azeris" and the "kurds" (only), the rest of the people in your book, you don't care for them, for they must be the bad guys. Afterall, there must be bad guys to help justify a very costly and ugly war, and to sell it to the people.

you humanitarian you ;)

(I'll read the rest of your comments later)

Unknown Joe says:

"Kurds are Iranian and the land of Kurds is Iran. Is it too hard for you to understand that there can be a country with people of different ethnicities in it? or no?"

American Observer says:

Oh, I have heard that story many times before. The Russians used to say it about the Kazakhs and the Azeris, and the Chinese still say it about the Tibetan and the Uighers.

Tell me, Unknown Joe, do you embrace the Russian or Chinese propaganda about the Russian and Chinese empires? If not, can you understand why I take the same attitude about the Iranian empire today?

To A.O., we're going to have fun.

Again, are you trying to imply that given the chance, Iranians won't hesitate to attack other people?

A.O.: "Indeed, at least a quarter of the territory of the Republic Of Iran is filled with captive people such as the Kurds and the Azeris".

LOL! don't let the truth get in your way (while you're manufacturing)

Kurds are Iranian and the land of Kurds is Iran. Is it too hard for you to understand that there can be a country with people of different ethnicities in it? or no?
On Azeris, if Torks who migrated into Iran in the past 1000 to 200 years ago and are of many generations Iranians, though they never lived in the state (province) of Azarabaijan, are they still considered "Azeris"? Azarbaijan is one of the states of Iran in the northwest. The new nation of Azerbaijan's name was given to that region which was taken by force from Iran (during the land-grabbing of Iran by Russia and Britain teaming together). That area was called Azarbaijan by the Russians in the hopes that maybe in the future they can take more of Iran's ancient lands by force and of course under twisting the truth. Iranians of the Tork ethnicity live in many provinces (states) of Iran and they don't call themselves "Azeris".

You're not trying to create ethnic and racial tension and division are you? You're concerned for humanity's sake, right? (you humanitarian you ;)

(I'll read the rest of your comments later)

To A.O., we're going to have fun.

Again, are you trying to imply that given the chance, Iranians won't hesitate to attack other people?

A.O.: "Indeed, at least a quarter of the territory of the Republic Of Iran is filled with captive people such as the Kurds and the Azeris".

LOL! don't let the truth get in your way (while you're manufacturing)

Kurds are Iranian and the land of Kurds is Iran. Is it too hard for you to understand that there can be a country with people of different ethnicities in it? or no?
On Azeris, if Torks who migrated into Iran in the past 1000 to 200 years ago and are of many generations Iranians, though they never lived in the state (province) of Azarabaijan, are they still considered "Azeris"? Azarbaijan is one of the states of Iran in the northwest. The new nation of Azerbaijan's name was given to that region which was taken by force from Iran (during the land-grabbing of Iran by Russia and Britain teaming together). That area was called Azarbaijan by the Russians in the hopes that maybe in the future they can take more of Iran's ancient lands by force and of course under twisting the truth. Iranians of the Tork ethnicity live in many provinces (states) of Iran and they don't call themselves "Azeris".

You're not trying to create ethnic and racial tension and division are you? You're concerned for humanity's sake, right? (you humanitarian you ;)

(I'll read the rest of your comments later)

To A.O., we're going to have fun.

Again, are you trying to imply that given the chance, Iranians won't hesitate to attack other people?

A.O.: "Indeed, at least a quarter of the territory of the Republic Of Iran is filled with captive people such as the Kurds and the Azeris".

LOL! don't let the truth get in your way (while you're manufacturing)

Kurds are Iranian and the land of Kurds is Iran. Is it too hard for you to understand that there can be a country with people of different ethnicities in it? or no?
On Azeris, if Torks who migrated into Iran in the past 1000 to 200 years ago and are of many generations Iranians, though they never lived in the state (province) of Azarabaijan, are they still considered "Azeris"? Azarbaijan is one of the states of Iran in the northwest. The new nation of Azerbaijan's name was given to that region which was taken by force from Iran (during the land-grabbing of Iran by Russia and Britain teaming together). That area was called Azarbaijan by the Russians in the hopes that maybe in the future they can take more of Iran's ancient lands by force and of course under twisting the truth. Iranians of the Tork ethnicity live in many provinces (states) of Iran and they don't call themselves "Azeris".

You're not trying to create ethnic and racial tension and division are you? You're concerned for humanity's sake, right? (you humanitarian you ;)

(I'll read the rest fo your comments later)

Wow, Unknown Joe -- so many words, and so few answers! You have dodged almost every one of my questions!

Unknown Joe says:

"Wrong, Russia and Britain weren't as powerful 250 years ago, they became more powerful in the following decades in the region."

American Observer responds:

That is my point exactly. Iran was very aggressive under Nader Shah, but with the rise of rival empires, such as the Russian and British and Turkish Empires, the Iranians simply were not able to find any targets who were weak enough to attack. Nonetheless, the Iranian Empire remained in occupation of a considerable portion of Kurdistan and Azerbaijan, and the Iranian imperialists are still there. Indeed, at least a quarter of the territory of the Republic Of Iran is filled with captive people such as the Kurds and the Azeris.

Unknown Joe says:

"You will of course try to write this off as "guff", as a matter of fact a stable Iraq and Afghanistan is what Iranians want, it's in their interest and for the sake of their security...."

American Observer replies:

You are right -- I am writing that off as guff. The Taliban never had a logical reason to blow up the World Trade Center in New York, but they did it anyway, and the Iranians are not a bit more logical. As people in the Middle East like to say, "The Iranians have three different governments and ten thousand different leaders," and each one of those governments has a separate sent of motives and agendas. The Iranians do not have a logical reason to arm their old enemies, the Taliban, but the Iranians are doing it anyway. We know this because the American military keeps capturing Iranians carrying armor-piercing bombs into Afghanistan and Iraq -- armor-piercing bombs that neither the Taliban nor the Shia insurgents in Iraq can make for themselves.

Unknown Joe, I don't know how old you are or how well you know American culture. Whatever. If you know America well enough, you would recognize the name of the comedian Jimmy Durante. Jimmy Durante used to have a routine where he tried to steal an elephant. In the routine, Jimmy Durante would spring the elephant from its cage and walk it out the door, but finally Durante would be walking down the street with the elephant in tow, and a policeman would walk up to Durante and say "Hey, buddy -- what do you think you are doing with that elephant?"

At this point Durante would scratch his head and look in both directions before asking in a tone of mystification "WHAT elephant?"

At this point you are in the same position, Unknown Joe. You can keep saying "WHAT armor-piercing bombs?" as often as you like, but Iran keeps sending them to Afghanistan or Iraq, and you have not even tried to offer an alternative story about where they come from.

Unknown Joe says:

"A.O.: "can you explain to us why a nation with more oil than any other in the world still does not have enough cracking towers to make gasoline for its own people?"

Unknown Joe: Again, I'm not an expert, but here's my two cents. It might be due to a combination of factors. The Iraq invasion and war and the destruction of the oil facilities, not having access to such technology, the imbargos and sanctions, possible incompetence by those in charge of the oil industry, such projects require huge sums of investments and money, even a wealthy country such as Saudi Arabia can't pursue such projects alone. "

American Observer replies:

So many words, and so much evasion! I know that the Iranians need partners to build an oil refinery, and I said so! However, the Russians are quite able to build an oil refinery, and the Russians have been building oil refineries for a hundred years. Why can't the Iranians just buy an oil refinery from the Russians?

Now, why don't you answer the question that you tried to dodge:

Can you explain to us why a nation which desperately needs oil refineries is spending billions of dollars to buy a nuclear reactor from the Russians?

WHY NOT JUST BUY AN OIL REFINERY FROM THE RUSSIANS?

Uknown Joe says:

"Well, I am ignorant about the nuclear field (many other fields too). It seems that all the experts in IAEA (and I would think there are American IAEA officials also), are completely ignorant, according to your comments."

American Observer replies:

You are distorting the position of the IAEA. The IAEA does not trust Iran, and the IAEA wants Iran's nuclear program under international control. The IAEA wants Iran to ship its nuclear materials out of the country where Iran cannot use them to make nuclear bombs. The IAEA is not as aggressive as America and Great Britain in wanting sanctions on Iran, because the IAEA is a little more patient; but their attitude towards Iran's nuclear program is the same.

Unknown Joe says:

"The development of nuclear power was initiated and recommended by United States, knowing the oil is limited and will run out in several decades. The nuclear power plant in Bushehr started during the shah's time and with the approval of United States."

American Observer replies:

That was then, and this is now. The Atoms For Peace program is over. America is no longer touting the peaceful development of nuclear energy as mankind's golden road to the future. In fact, we have not even started a nuclear reactor in our own country for decades. Furthermore, the Shah is dead. (In fact, he probably died before you were born.) Neither America nor the world trusts Iran any more. Iran's attack on our embassy in the seventies and Iran's attacks on Kuwaiti ships in the eighties and Iran's support of the insurgents in Algeria in the nineties and Iran's arms for the insurgents in the present decade remind us that Iran is violent and irrational, and Iran cannot be trusted with weapons of mass destruction, or with the means to make them.

Moving along, let me remind you of some of the other questions that you have tried to evade:

Can you explain, more than half a century into the nuclear age, why any one would need to do research with a breeder reactor?

Nuclear power is a mature technology, and doing research into nuclear power is like trying to figure out how many wheels an automobile needs.

If the Iranians want to do research, why not spend their money on a cyclotron or a telescope or a hospital to work on cancer research?

And if the Iranians want electricity, why buy a BREEDER reactor? Why not buy a LIGHT-WATER reactor, which makes more voltage and less radioactive waste?

"You mean since the time of Nadir Shah? Well, excuse me, do you mean that Iran has been incapable of attacking other countries, because Iran was hemmed in on all sides by greater powers, such as the British, the Russians, and the Turks?" - A.O.

Wrong, Russia and Britain weren't as powerful 250 years ago, they became more powerful in the following decades in the region (more "guff"? lol). As for the Ottomans, the superpower, they attacked Iran and started a very long and bloody war 500 years ago (by attacking north-west Iran). I know this may sound as "guff" to you, with the delibertae manner which you are trying to demonize Iranians and in the process twisting the truth. Are you trying to imply that given the chance, Iranians won't hesitate to attack other people?

A.O.: "and I think all honest observers will agree that Iran is attacking both of those nations".

LOL! See A.O., your credibility goes out of the window with such self back-patting comments (of course, you consider yourself as one of the "honest" observers).

You will of course try to write this off as "guff", as a matter of fact a stable Iraq and Afghanistan is what Iranians want, it's in their interest and for the sake of their security (not mentioning for the sake of those people). They have been helping in the construction of these countries.

AO: "Of course, Iran is merely shipping armor-piercing bombs to those terrorists, and not nuclear weapons; after all, Iran does not have nuclear weapons -- yet; and we can be sure that Iran will not ship nuclear weapons before Iran has them. Therefore, we need to keep the iron ring around Iran's neck until the Iranian regime falls, or until Iran has been forced to abandon its entire nuclear program the hard way".

So, A.O. they just want to kill Americans, that's what you want everyone to beleive , right?
The terrorists are coming from Saudi Arabia and other friendly nations to the United States, you know it and yet it is never mentioned.

A.O.: "Do you deny that Iran has an open and public nuclear weapons program?"

Excuse me, but I'm a civilian and am not privy to such information. It seems that experts in this field disagree with you, but what do they know, they're only experts in that field. LOL

A.O.: "can you explain to us why a nation with more oil than any other in the world still does not have enough cracking towers to make gasoline for its own people?"

Again, I'm not an expert, but here's my two cents. It might be due to a combination of factors. The Iraq invasion and war and the destruction of the oil facilities, not having access to such technology, the imbargos and sanctions, possible incompetence by those in charge of the oil industry, such projects require huge sums of investments and money, even a wealthy country such as Saudi Arabia can't pursue such projects alone.

A.O.: "Can you explain why a nation with more oil than another in the world is selling oil overseas so it can buy gasoline from foreign powers at world prices, prices which are much higher than the price would be if Iran refined its own gasoline?"

Very good point, they don't enough enough refineries (the imbargo, the shortage of cash, the war, ability to build refineries, money,etc.)

A.O.: "Can you explain to us why a nation which desperately needs oil refineries is spending billions of dollars to buy a nuclear reactor from the Russians?"

The development of nuclear power was initiated and recommended by United States, knowing the oil is limited and will run out in several decades. The nuclear power plant in Bushehr started during the shah's time and with the approval of United States. It seems they have to pursue both (refineries and nuclear power plants).

A.O.: "can you explain, more than half a century into the nuclear age, why any one would need to do research with a breeder reactor? Nuclear power is a mature technology, and doing research into nuclear power is like trying to figure out how many wheels an automobile needs. If the Iranians want to do research, why not spend their money on a cyclotron or a telescope or a hospital to work on cancer research? And if the Iranians want electricity, why buy a breeder reactor? Why not buy a light-water reactor, which makes more voltage and less radioactive waste?"

I don't know about nuclear technology (and nuclear breeders). Maybe, they feel they are isolated (sanctions) and need it in order to be self-sufficient. Past embargos (such as the early '50s) may have played a role in this way of thinking also. Nuclear science and technology appararently helps in other fields also (medicine).

A.O.: "You would have to be completely ignorant of nuclear physics to find any mystery in any of them".

Well, I am ignorant about the nuclear field (many other fields too). It seems that all the experts in IAEA (and I would think there are American IAEA officials also), are completely ignorant, according to your comments.

Iran is not this very imminent danger to Israel (oh, America too). Either you are completely ignorant of this fact, or are trying to twist the facts for whatever reason. They don't want to harm any people, they just want to live. As for IRI, it seems some support it and some don't, it seems many in both camps favor progress and curbing of incompetence and corruption. History and common sense make it clear that when a country is attacked, the people of that country will defend themselves. You are either deliberately, or innocently beating the drums of war for killing and hurting millions of innocent Iranians. Why? because you think they can't wait to hurt others.

(can I borrow your crystal ball for a short time? I'd appreciate it)

Anonymous says:

"I will respond soon."

American Observer says:

Wonderful. When you do, would you do us the courtesy of using a screen name? Or should we just call you 'Unknown Joe?'

Oh A.O.,

A.O.: "I expect to hear the usual storm of guff, but I don't expect you to actually address any of my questions".

Fortune teller? Can I borrow your crystal ball? (I need to make some good investments in the stock market and with high returns).

I will respond soon.

Anonymous says about Iran:

"Nor is it even close to having nuclear weapons, according to intelligence studies in the media they're at least 5 to 10 years away (even if they had such a clandestine program for developing nuclear weapons)."

American Observer replies:

Anonymous, how close do they have to be before we take action? Do you deny that Iran has an open and public nuclear weapons program? If you deny it, can you explain to us why a nation with more oil than any other in the world still does not have enough cracking towers to make gasoline for its own people? Can you explain why a nation with more oil than another in the world is selling oil overseas so it can buy gasoline from foreign powers at world prices, prices which are much higher than the price would be if Iran refined its own gasoline? Can you explain to us why a nation which desperately needs oil refineries is spending billions of dollars to buy a nuclear reactor from the Russians? And, can you explain, more than half a century into the nuclear age, why any one would need to do research with a breeder reactor?

Nuclear power is a mature technology, and doing research into nuclear power is like trying to figure out how many wheels an automobile needs. If the Iranians want to do research, why not spend their money on a cyclotron or a telescope or a hospital to work on cancer research? And if the Iranians want electricity, why buy a breeder reactor? Why not buy a light-water reactor, which makes more voltage and less radioactive waste?

The answers to all those questions are obvious, 'anonymous.' You would have to be completely ignorant of nuclear physics to find any mystery in any of them. I expect to hear the usual storm of guff, but I don't expect you to actually address any of my questions.

Anonymous claims:

"t seems that Iran is not that big and bad threat as being presented (irrespective of who's in power, Iranians have never attacked their neighbors for the past 250 years)."

American Observer replies:

You mean since the time of Nadir Shah? Well, excuse me, do you mean that Iran has been incapable of attacking other countries, because Iran was hemmed in on all sides by greater powers, such as the British, the Russians, and the Turks?

But then, I guess we have to define what we mean by 'attack.' The Iranians have been caught sending armor-piercing bombs to terrorists in Iran and Afghanistan. Since the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan have both been elected by their people and since the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan have both been recognized by the United Nations, it is clear that nobody has a right to arm insurgents in those countries, and I think all honest observers will agree that Iran is attacking both of those nations. Of course, Iran is merely shipping armor-piercing bombs to those terrorists, and not nuclear weapons; after all, Iran does not have nuclear weapons -- yet; and we can be sure that Iran will not ship nuclear weapons before Iran has them. Therefore, we need to keep the iron ring around Iran's neck until the Iranian regime falls, or until Iran has been forced to abandon its entire nuclear program the hard way.

Anonymous says:

"It seems that the country is about a little over 9 trillion dollars in the red, during the last 7 years."

American Observer agrees:

I agree. I was completely against Bush's tax cuts the same way I was against Bush himself. As an American, I am proud that I voted for Bill Clinton twice, I voted for Al Gore, and I voted for John Kerry.

Hope this helps A.O.

It seems that Iran is not that big and bad threat as being presented (irrespective of who's in power, Iranians have never attacked their neighbors for the past 250 years). Nor is it even close to having nuclear weapons, according to intelligence studies in the media they're at least 5 to 10 years away (even if they had such a clandestine program for developing nuclear weapons).

It seems that the country is about a little over 9 trillion dollars in the red, during the last 7 years.

It seems that the Iraq war was a big sham.

It seems that the majority of the American people are upset with all the lies and the spins.

(is the grammar a bit better?)

p.s. I'm no fan of Chomsky, but why such claims as "we" and "despise" and "real scholars"? OK, so some may agree with him and some may not, what's the big deal?
Blind prejudice, blinds (sorry for the grammar) :)

Anonymous says:

"The good 'ol boys in Washington of course have been listening to you for the past 27 years, whatever you say sir ..."

American Observer replies:

'Annomymous,' I am flattered, but I have to assure you that I have no voice in American foreign policy -- really; I am just a private citizen, like yourself.

Anonymous says:

"p.s. By the way, who's "we"? (you yourself deep down know you're not talking on behalf of the majority of Americans, waiting for your spin)"

American Observer replies:

I am sorry, I wish I could form a response to that, but the simple fact is that your grammar is so crooked that I cannot decipher your message. Would you like to try again?

A.O.: "We don't need to negotiate with the Iranians; we need to keep the sanctions and make them tighter".

The good 'ol boys in Washington of course have been listening to you for the past 27 years, whatever you say sir (don't bother with trying to justify and also alienate them baaaad Iranians, not needed, whatever you say goes, so far).

p.s. #1 By the way, who's "we"? (you yourself deep down know you're not talking on behalf of the majority of Americans, waiting for your spin)

A.O.: "and that is why Naom Chomsky and his castles of nonsense are despised by real scholars all over the world".

despised"? such strong words, and who are the "real scholars"? you? LOL!

A.O.: "We don't need to negotiate with the Iranians; we need to keep the sanctions and make them tighter".

The good 'ol boys in Washington of course have been listening to you for the past 27 years, whatever you say sir (don't bother with trying to justify and also alienate them baaaad Iranians, not needed, whatever you say goes, so far).

p.s. By the way, who's "we"? (you yourself deep down know you're not talking on behalf of the majority of Americans, waiting for your spin)

Yes, discussions of the Chinese thinking 'in terms of centuries' always seem to ignore the fact that they have radically warped their gender demographics through the constant drowning of female babies under their One Child policy, are massively polluting their cities and countryside on a scale that makes Russian communism look like a greenpeace rally, and are investing primarily in land speculation and internal corruption. China was a great civilization once and may be again, but they are headed in the wrong direction.

And all this discussion of 'soft power' - as if America doesn't have any? Ever heard of movies, television, and rock and roll? There's a reason American culture is still beloved as far afield as China and Iran - it is actually America's greatest asset, and why countries that we 'lose' to, like Vietnam, end up loving us again anyway. America: keep on rocking in the free world.

'Intellectual' Observer claims:

"First you called Jasper Becker “the Beijing bureau chief” for a certain Hong Kong tabloid –I’ll get back to that point later, then you claim he’s a “specialist in Asian history”.

American Observer says:

I never claimed that Jasper Becker works for a tabloid, I said that he works for a newspaper. I don't speak Naom Chomsky-glish, IO; what does the word 'tabloid' mean in your language? Secondly, there is no contradiction between being a specialist in Asian history and the Beijing bureau chief of the South China Morning Post. Think about it.

'Intellectual' Observer claims:

"You claim that “figures from the Chinese Communist Party are always lies”, then you turn right around and quote some figure from a dead Chinese president. Why in the hell would you quote a source you think is unreliable???"

American Observer replies:

IO, why don't you know anything about Chinese history? The figures from the President of the People's Republic Of China do not come from the Chinese Communist Party -- they come from a president who was overthrown in a military coup and put under house arrest for supporting the demonstrators at Tiananmen. Why don't you know that?

'Intellectual' Observer says:

"As for” The South China Morning post” (quite a mouth full) being the most respected journal in Asia, well, all I have to say is we all have our own journalistic standards. And mine just happens to be much higher than yours…"

American Observer replies:

I have caught you in another lie. I never said it was THE most respected journal in Asia, I said it was ONE of the most respected journals in Asia. And furthermore, it remains impossible for you to honestly attack a periodical which you have never read, ever. While you are at it, why don't you name an Asian periodical which you yourself respect more? Then, why don't you quote a book which you respect about Chinese history? If you and the Nazis and Naom Chomsky have an alternative history or alternative figures for the Great Leap Forward, why don't you put them on the board?

'Intellectual' Observer says:

"How else would you describe someone who makes claims (that he’s ill qualified to make) and can’t back it up with hard evidence"

American Observer replies:

How 'hard' do you need that evidence, IO? Don't you know the enormous amount of bureaucratic evidence which confirms the Great Leap Forward, and can't you see how the hundreds of interviews which Jasper Becker gave mesh with it? Don't you see that is the same kind of evidence that we got from the Nuremburg trials, when the crimes of your friend Hitler were exposed? As I have said elsewhere, you are the one who is speaking without evidence.

'Intellectual' Observer says:

"In conclusion, A.O, if you want to convince me of your salacious claims, you need to come with a lot more than some phony evidence from a “supposed” Chinese scholar."

American Observer replies:

IO, the word 'salacious' refers to sexual, and you know neither of us have referred to sex in any way, shape, or form, unless you consider famine and cannibalism to be sexy. To be honest, I don't think you meant 'salacious' in the real sense either; you are just an intellectual crow, pasting your feathers with borrowed words and rhetoric that you don't actually understand. Furthermore, we all remember how I fried your 'statistical reasoning' last night, and you have given not even a shred of evidence to call Jasper Becker's evidence 'phony' or accuse him of being a 'supposed' Chinese scholar. You are the one who is making claims that cannot be substantiated.

IO, I wish I could say that I have never seen more pretentious arrogance attached to less logic or evidence before, but I cannot make that claim. Unfortunately, you are presenting exactly the same piles of self-righteous drivel that the world expects from Naom Chomsky; and that is why Naom Chomsky and his castles of nonsense are despised by real scholars all over the world.

A.O.
First you called Jasper Becker “the Beijing bureau chief” for a certain Hong Kong tabloid –I’ll get back to that point later, then you claim he’s a “specialist in Asian history”. I suppose next you’re going to tell me that he’s got a PhD in Statistics from MIT, and he did his PhD dissertation on “how the Chinese survived famines of 1958” WHAT A BUNCH OF HORSE MANURE!!! Now, I know you don’t like the way I describe your idol Jasper Becker as a second rate story teller, but I call it like I see it. How else would you describe someone who makes claims (that he’s ill qualified to make) and can’t back it up with hard evidence... BTW, the first rate story tellers work for WP and assured us that we’ll find all kinds of WMD in the Iraqi desert… Look man, I’m not the one being arrogant here. To the contrary, I think it’s extremely arrogant of you to ask me to accept an absurd claim without providing any corroborating evidence….

And A.O., you need to stop talking out both sides of your mouth. You claim that “figures from the Chinese Communist Party are always lies”, then you turn right around and quote some figure from a dead Chinese president. Why in the hell would you quote a source you think is unreliable??? Has you brain atrophied to the point where it’s no longer capable of any kind of serious cognitive activities??

As for” The South China Morning post” (quite a mouth full) being the most respected journal in Asia, well, all I have to say is we all have our own journalistic standards. And mine just happens to be much higher than yours…

In conclusion, A.O, if you want to convince me of your salacious claims, you need to come with a lot more than some phony evidence from a “supposed” Chinese scholar. Look, if you want to believe every story in 1001 Arabian nights that’s your business. And if you want to hop on your magic carpet and ride into oblivion, that would be fine too. Just don’t expect the rest of us to come along for a ride.

'Intellectual' Observer claims:

"Associating me with Hitler, or quoting some obscure scholars, or invoking some dead Chinese president does nothing to improve Jasper Becker’s credibility."

American Observer replies:

I associate you with Hitler because you are both flippant about genocide. As for 'obscure' Chinese scholars, who would you consider to be a 'prominent' Chinese scholar, and what does your 'prominent' Chinese scholar say about the 'Great Leap Forward?' And why exactly is it wrong to 'invoke' -- or, more precisely, QUOTE -- a Chinese president in a conversation about China? Who would know more about Chinese statistics than a president of China? Do you notice that you are so ignorant about Chinese history that you cannot quote any Chinese scholar or any Chinese president at all?

'Intellectual' Observer claims:

"Since he is not a specialist of any kind..."

American Observer replies:

Jasper Becker is a specialist in Asian history and Asian events, IO, and Jasper Becker is a thousand times more qualified to interview Asian sources than, say, a psychologist would be, and Jasper Becker is a thousand times more qualified to interview Asian sources than, say, Naom Chomsky would be.

'Intellectual' Observer claims:

"It’s not that I want to impugn Becker’s journalistic integrity, the fact he’s a second rate story teller working for a Hong Kong tabloid notwithstanding..."

American Observer replies:

Can't you see how arrogant and dishonest you are? You begin your sentence by denying that you want to 'impugn Becker's journalistic integrity,' and then you complete your sentence by doing exactly that. You had never heard of Jasper Becker before I mentioned him, and you have never read a line of his writing. By what right or shadow of a right do you call him a 'story-teller?' Because, like Naom Chomsky, you think you think you are such a genius that you do not need to investigate any scholar before denouncing him?

And why do you even bother with an empty adjective like 'second-rate?' What is the difference between 'second-rate' and 'first-rate' in a context like this? Why put in a 'rate' at all? Are you just so drunk on your own egotism that you suck on each of your adjectives like a child sucking on candy?

You have furthermore shown your total ignorance of Asia by calling The South China Morning Post a tabloid, when The South China Morning Post does not fit EITHER definition of the word 'tabloid'; instead, it folds in quarters like most American newspapers, and it is one of the most respected journals in Asia; which you would know, if you had ever seen it, but of course you have not.

'Intellectual' Observer claims:

"According to UN census figures, China currently has a population of 1.3 Billion..."

American Observer replies:

My God, man, what do you mean by 'UN census figures?' The United Nations has never taken a census of China, because China is a Communist state, and the Chinese Communist Party would never allow an international organization to go around the hills and back country asking questions. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? When the UN gives population figures for China, the UN is merely repeating what the Chinese Communist Party has told them, and the figures from the Chinese Communist Party are always lies.

As you SHOULD know, local Chinese officials are responsible for holding down population growth in their districts, and they are punished if they fail; so the local officials hide and misreport a lot of births, and the figures that they give the central government are always too low. (Anybody who knows history will recognize the pattern of fake figures which runs across all Communist societies.) All Chinese experts agree that the real population of China is at least three hundred million people higher, for a total of one point six billion. If you are too stupid to recognize the obvious truth of that, go find an expert of your own and look it up.

'Intellectual' Observer claims:

"That’s more than 3 fold increase in a 60-yr span."

American Observer replies:

Exactly. This has happened in human populations many times before. (Colonial Quebec and Colonial Virginia are good examples.) If you go look it up, you will find that the population of Algeria increased roughly EIGHT-fold in the same time period. Really! Go look it up!

'Intellectual' Observer claims:

"If Jasper’s claim has even a shred of truth to it, then the Chinese government wasted way too much time worrying about over population."

American Observer replies:

Go read what I just wrote. Then, if you are still confused, try to learn elementary multiplication. (Did you skip third grade?) Remember, in the state of nature human populations routinely have six babies per woman. According to United Nations figures, this birth rate was still standard across the developing world in the year 1960, and this rate can triple the population in each generation. Multiply that across three generations, and you are lucky if you don't increase the population by twenty-seven fold. Of course in nature the population rarely increases quite that fast, because there is usually a Yellow River Famine or a Second World War or a Great Leap Forward to kill tens of millions of people and keep the population from doing more than tripling or quadrupling.

As you probably know, sometimes populations do contract as well. Obviously, epidemics from Eurasia lowered the population of native Americans until the 1890s, when the population of Native Americans finally began to rebound. And, of course, Stalin killed twenty million Soviets during the Great Terror and the forced collectivization of the nineteen-thirties, and with the loss of thirty million during the Second World War, that was fifty million dead outright; and, if you add in the four children per female that those dead people might have had in a healthy society, well, you can see how the numbers add up. The Russian historian and statistician Alexander Solzhenitsyn blames the Russian Communist Party not only for the purges and the forced collectivization, but also for signing the treaty with the Germany which allowed the Nazis to start the Second World War, so Alexander Solzhenitsyn has correctly observed that the population of the Russian Empire wound up being one hundred million people smaller than it would have been if the Communist Party had never come into being.

So, 'Intellectual' Observer, you need to use your intellect a lot harder. If you are surprised to know that one in nine Chinese died during the Great Leap Forward, you should not be surprised. If you are surprised to know that the Great Leap Forward killed more Chinese than the Second World War, you should not be. If you knew anything about the history of Communism, you would know that such death tolls are common in the history of Communism. Ask the Ukraininans! Ask the Cambodians! Ask the Chechens! Ask the Latvians! Per capita, all of those nations actually suffered worse under Communism.

'Intellectual' Observer, your response has the same arrogant stink as the writing of Naom Chomksy, and I now know your character so well that I am certain you will be flattered by the comparison. Like Naom Chomsky, you feel so confident of your genius that you never have to read history books or pay attention to experts. Instead, you can denounce an expert that you have never read, you can denounce a newspaper of which you have never heard before I mentioned it, and you can flip around bogus numbers like a child estimating his allowance. You are good at tossing around god-like rhetoric, but you never allow a historian or a journalist or a statistic to get in the way of your self-righteous drivel.

To A.O.

Associating me with Hitler, or quoting some obscure scholars, or invoking some dead Chinese president does nothing to improve Jasper Becker’s credibility. The fact remains, according to you, Jasper Becker made an extraordinary claim that “the Chinese…ate their own children in the millions”. Inevitably the burden of proof rests on him. Since he is not a specialist of any kind – that could qualify him to make the kind of claims that he made, nor did he bring a specialist with him on his “research trips”, nor did he dig up any “mass graves” – hence no physical evidence, I have every right to question his sensational claims. It’s not that I want to impugn Becker’s journalistic integrity, the fact he’s a second rate story teller working for a Hong Kong tabloid notwithstanding, his numbers just don’t add up. According to UN census figures, China currently has a population of 1.3Billion, and at the end of Chinese civil war, the population stood at 400 million. That’s more than 3 fold increase in a 60-yr span. Presumably, that growth could be much higher had Chinese government not instituted the one child policy in the 70’s. If Jasper’s claim has even a shred of truth to it, then the Chinese government wasted way too much time worrying about over population. Or maybe, the sinister Chinese government inflated their population numbers to cover up the fact that “the Chinese ate millions of their own children”… Come on American observer, stop making a fool of yourself and start using that pea sized brain you got left from your unsuccessful lobotomy

To A.O.
Associating me with Hitler, or quoting some obscure scholars, or invoking some dead Chinese president does nothing to improve Jasper Becker’s credibility. The fact remains, according to you, Jasper Becker made an extraordinary claim that “the Chinese…ate their own children in the millions”. Inevitably the burden of proof rests on him. Since he is not a specialist of any kind – that could qualify him to make the kind of claims he made, nor did he bring a specialist with him on his “research trips”, nor did he dig up any “mass graves” – hence no physical evidence, I have every right to question his sensational claims. It’s not that I want to impugn Becker’s journalistic integrity, the fact he’s a second rate story teller working for a Hong Kong tabloid notwithstanding, his numbers just don’t add up. According to UN census figures, China currently has a population of 1.3Billion, and at the end of Chinese civil war, the population stood at 400 million. That’s more than 3 fold increase in a 60-yr span. Presumably, that growth could be much higher had Chinese government not instituted the one child policy in the 70’s. If Jasper’s claim has even a shred of truth to it, then the Chinese government wasted way too much time worrying about over population. Or maybe, the sinister Chinese government inflated their population numbers to cover up the fact that “the Chinese ate millions of their own children”… Come on American observer, stop making a fool of yourself and start using that pea sized brain you got left from your unsuccessful lobotomy

'Intelligent' Observer says:

"So what? He’s not a social anthropologist; he’s not a forensic scientist; he’s not a statistician; he’s not psychologist; he’s not an archeologist… So I ask you again, what makes him the self-appointed expert on "Chinese cannibalism"?"

American Observer says:

What a cutting criticism! And it turns out that Jasper Becker did his research in the eighties, while there were still plenty of living witnesses! Unfortunately, Becker was only a world-class journalist with a tape recorder -- not a 'social antropologist' or a 'forensic scientist' or a 'statistician' or a 'psychologist' or an 'archaeologist!' Too bad he did not bring a 'social antropologist' or a 'forensic scientist' or a 'statistician' or a 'psychologist' or an 'archaeologist!' Too bad he did not bring the entire United Nations! Unfortunately, China is a police state, and the situation was even worse than it is now, so he could not bring those things. It seems that Communists have a funny attitude towards people who go digging into mass graves.

'Intelligent' Observer, how have you gotten to be old enough to use a computer so glibly without knowing anything about Chinese history at all? Harrison Salisbury quotes Zhao Ziyang, the late president of the People's Republic of China, as saying that forty-eight to fifty-two million Chinese died in the Great Leap Forward. IO, how do you think those people died, and more importantly, how do you think the rest of the Chinese farmers survived?

Now, judging by the arrogance and ignorance you have shown on this page, you probably don't know who Harrison Salisbury was, or who Zhao Zi-yang was, or what the Great Leap Forward was. At this point you have a choice -- you could go to google.com or wikipedia.com and look those things up, or you could stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the bedsheet boys who deny the Holocaust.

Police states have always done their best to destroy all the witnesses to their crimes, and then relied on the arrogance and ignorance of people like you to complete the cover-ups for them. It worked for the Turks in Armenia, it worked for the Soviets in Chechenya, and it would have worked for your friend Hitler, if your friend Hitler had not been overthrown by foreign powers. If you 'question' any part of the Chinese Holocaust, go get any standard history of China and try to understand the outlines of the Great Leap Forward, and then read 'Hungry Ghosts' to understand the rest.

A.Observer wrote
"Jasper Becker is the Beijing Bureau Chief for the South China Morning Post, the largest English-language newspaper in Hong Kong"
So what? He’s not a social anthropologist; he’s not a forensic scientist; he’s not a statistician; he’s not psychologist; he’s not an archeologist… So I ask you again, what makes him the self-appointed expert on "Chinese cannibalism"?
Unless you are quoting your numbers from a published UN Study, I would have to categorically reject that “Chinese…eating their own children in the millions” as nothing more than hearsay. At least Jasper Beck made a few bucks by selling his lies. What do you get from repeating his lies?

As for your snide remark about Chomsky, I will not comment. I believe Noam’s work speaks for itself. The only thing I will add is that maybe Chomsky’s impeccable logic is beyond the grasp of you infantile brain.

To the promoters of "soft power":

This website and blogspace would be inoperable or shut down by soft-power devotees in China or Iran. Perhaps you could blog by carrier pigeon, assuming that a starving peasant would not intercept and eat it.

No free speech and no free exchange of ideas for the common man and woman living in a soft-power world. They simply cannot be trusted.

If you are a journalist living in a soft-power environment, well you can cowardly espouse the soft-power party line like Islamist Ali Ettefagh or end up courageously shot dead (Russia), imprisoned (China), or missing or imprisoned (Iran). So much for freedom of the press in the soft-power world.

Here are some examples of recent Russian "soft power": claiming the North pole; threatening to cutoff natural gas (during the winter) to its neighbors who chart independence; murdering journalists; unsucessfully poisoning a presidential candidate in a neighboring country and then succesfully radioactively poisoning an expatriate in England; and selling impotent missile and radar systems to Syria and Iran.

Here are some recent examples of recent Chinese "soft power": enabling the Darfur massacre by supporting the Sudanese government with investments, arms, and oil revenues; poisoning its citizens so that 300 million lack local drinking water and 30,000 per day die of lung cancer (and poisoning Russian rivers and cities, to boot); censoring the internet, paper publications, and speech; imprisoning dissidents; and threating to destroy Taiwan as part of a national unification (liquidation) plan.

Here are some recent examples of Iranian "soft power": manufacturing copper-shielded IEDs to murder our troops; beheading Baha'is and homosexuals; murdering and imprisoning students and dissidents; suppressing women by limiting their opportunities (be it dress, religious practices, or educational opportunities); claiming Bahrain as an Iranian province to be returned by any means necessary; and creating nuclear weapons to commit mass murder of Jewish and Arab citizens living in a UN member state (Israel) in violation of the U.N. charter.

Contrary to the premise of the spokesman for the Islamic Republic of Iran (Ali Ettefagh), that America needs to be restrained, it seems that America, its allies, and the UN have been napping.

Finally, for those who cannot figure out if they prefer the soft-power politics and prospects of a Mafia paradise (Russia), an exploitive mercantilist paradise (China), or an Islamic paradise (Iran) to that of an open and virile America, then where would you rather live, virile America or a soft Russia, China, or Iran?

'Intelligent' Observer says:

"I don't know who the Jasper Becker is"

American Observer replies:

Jasper Becker is the Beijing Bureau Chief for the South China Morning Post, the largest English-language newspaper in Hong Kong. Jasper Becker is also a first-rate scholar whose books on China are read and respected all over the world.

'Intelligent' Observer says:

"I suggest that you go read some real books like "Hegemony and Survival" and "failed state", by Noam Chompsky."

American Observer says:

As I have said before, Naom Chomsky is the Bobby Fischer of linguistics. Like Fischer, Chomsky is able to dedicate his twisted brain completely to a narrow field which has no connection to anything in the outside world; but when he leaves that field, Chomsky gives nothing except paranoid drivel. That is why Bobby Fischer and Naom Chomsky are despised by all serious journalists and political scientists.

Bravo Intelligent Observer!
Gee... and I thought all of those American TV shows, a.k. news, are reality!

A.Observer wrote
"I hope you are being sarcastic! However, if there is anyone out there who is so ignorant that he does not know about cannibalism in China, then I suggest that he go to Amazon.com and look up Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine
by Jasper Becker"
Since it's on Amazon.com, so it must be true, right, right? I don't know who the Jasper Becker is. But I'm pretty damn sure he was not in China from 1958 to 61. So remind me again what exactly makes him a self-appointed world expert on "Chinese Cannibalism" that I have to believe every word he wrote? What, that 2 trips he took to China? Give me a break. Anyone with IQ of 50 can see through his work for what it is - a piece of sensational journalism spiced up with some old fashion China bashing (and probably not worth the paper it's written on, I mgiht add).

American Observer, when you are done reading Jasper Becker;s master piece of fiction, I suggest that you go read some real books like "Hegemony and Survival" and "failed state", by Noam Chompsky. Maybe it'll help to dislodge some of the strange ideas that spoon fed to you by the warmongers at AEI, and the war criminal that's occupying in the white house.

YTS says:

"Every in Washington one knows that Robin Wright is a 2nd league writer going around aimlessly and on the payroll of AIPAC. "

American Observer replies:

Whether you like Robin Wright or not, YTS, the Taliban do not have enough technology to make armor-piercing bombs by themselves. The US military either intercepted an Iranian shipment or they did not -- there is no room for bias, and there is no middle ground.

The world is changing. We see the breakdown of many presumptions and old structures. Americans are still stuck in the past, some 30-40 years ago. So, I think the writer is correct about the 1960s-1970s era.

You play, you pay
That is the only thng I can said.

You loose, go home
That's when all your money are gone.

The world will balance itself out, one way or the other.

Dear American Observer,
You seem to be taking things too personally. Every in Washington one knows that Robin Wright is a 2nd league writer going around aimlessly and on the payroll of AIPAC.
She wrote mindless articles in The Post to show that Haleh Esfandiari was being harshly treated in an Iranian prison for espionage, etc. If you read today's Post, you can read that Mrs. Esfandiari is negating all of that in her own words from DC:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091401967.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The Washington Post reports today:

"Arms Flow Between Iran, Taliban Escalating

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 15, 2007; 12:18 PM

An Iranian arms shipment destined for the Taliban was intercepted on Sept. 6 by the international force in Afghanistan in what appears to be an escalating flow of weaponry between the two former enemies, according to officials from countries in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.

The shipment included armor-piercing bombs known as explosively formed projectiles, which have been especially deadly when used as roadside bombs against foreign troops in Iraq, the sources said. The NATO-led force interdicted two smaller shipments of similar weapons coming from Iran into southern Helmand province on April 11 and May 3.

....

Iran, a Shiite-dominated country, has long opposed the Taliban, a Sunni group with different ideas. Their cooperation is based on common opposition to foreign and partic